This link is a good start on legitimate scientists coming out and agreeing that the conspiracy theories are whacked. Okay, it was on O'Reilly, but at least people are coming out and addressing the misinformation.
____________________________________________________

Snippet:

O'REILLY: The World Trade Center towers fell too quickly. That's the big one. And you say what?

MEIGS (Editor in Chief for Popular Mechanics magazine): Well, they didn't. I mean, you know, one of the things that comes up a lot in these conspiracy theories is kind of a cartoon version, how we think things ought to have happened.

Well, no one had ever seen 100-plus story building collapse to the ground before. And so the idea that it was going to tip over like a big tree or something was based on just a hunch, as opposed to science.

What we found is this is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in world history. You know, thousands of engineers. And witnesses have been interviewed. Engineers have studied it. And the engineering community's unanimous that a combination of devastating impact from the jets — it severed building members — and then the effects of fires over multiple floors gradually weakened what remained until it began to sag and ultimately collapse.

Popular Science is part of the NWO.

Indeed they are. Notice how he makes absolutely no mention of building 7 which was not hit by a plane and was barely if at all on fire yet it somehow collapsed at free fall speeds in demolition style fashion.

MEIGS (Editor in Chief for Popular Mechanics magazine): Well, they didn't. I mean, you know, one of the things that comes up a lot in these conspiracy theories is kind of a cartoon version, how we think things ought to have happened.

Well, no one had ever seen 100-plus story building collapse to the ground before. And so the idea that it was going to tip over like a big tree or something was based on just a hunch, as opposed to science.

Indeed they are. Notice how he makes absolutely no mention of building 7 which was not hit by a plane and was barely if at all on fire yet it somehow collapsed at free fall speeds in demolition style fashion.

The fact that you think it was barely on fire proves how little you've actually researched this.

Look for photos and videos taken from the south side of WTC7 - you know, the side that NO CTer wants to show, because it clearly illustrates the extensive damage to that side. Smoke was billowing from virtually every window on that side.

A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

The fact that you think a steel skyscraper can even collapse(in free fall fashion no elss) due to fire damage proves how little you've researched physics(see the Madrid building). It was barely on fire and the same goes for both the north and south towers. All of these buildings were hardly on fire and all three of these buildings were brought down with explosives BEYOND ALL DOUBT.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html - contains picture of building 7 at approximately 3pm on the fated afternoon with a mere two floors partially on fire

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/mad...ing_inferno.htm - Madrid building that burned with a raging inferno for approx. 24 hours and DID NOT COLLAPSE
Get a clue TK

You can't be serious, trusting popular science.

The steel structure in the Windsor Building (Madrid) indeed collapsed. The concrete structure did not. It also didn't sustain a 20 storey hole in it's side. The WTC buildings were of steel contruction.

Why not trust Popular Science? Have they been known to print untruthful articles in the past?

No, instead I will put my faith in people with no education or experience in fire fighting techniques, structural engineering, and in many cases seemingly no common sense. These are the same people that try to tell me that there is a large contingent of square and compasses bearing, human skin wearing reptillians that rule the world that originally came from outer space.

Is that better?

With the amount of damage to surrounding buildings, how can you say that WTC-7 fell from fire alone? The collapses threw large chunks of concrete, glass and metal into surrounding buildings... are you saying that WTC-7 had no structural damage from falling debris?

These are the same people that try to tell me that there is a large contingent of square and compasses bearing, human skin wearing reptillians that rule the world that originally came from outer space.

NEITHER DID BUILDING 7, HI, GET ANOTHER CLUE
They are biased and are controlled by the people who perpetrated 9/11, just like Popular Mechanics.
You mean like the 9/11 Commission and the Popular Science/Mechanics?
Building 7 was brought down with explosives, I don't get where you got the idea I thought it was brought down by fire. If you honestly think a steel skyscraper will collapse into its own footprint in a free fall collapse from "falling debris" then for you to say this line,"instead I will put my faith in people with no education or experience in fire fighting techniques, structural engineering, and in many cases seemingly no common sense." has GOT TO BE the ultimate irony.
I don't ever remember saying this but way to take ONE MAN's theories(David Ickes') and associate them with everyone else. If that isn't ignorance then I don't know what is.

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down."

I know firefighters that died on 9/11 and I know firefighters that survived and they say those guys are liars and heard explosives(several bombs) going off in and around the buildings. One of them also happens to be into construction and also happens to have a relative who works with demolitions who happens to know for a fact that all of the WTC buildings were brought down with the use of demolitions.

Also, why doesn't a single shot of WTC-7 show a hole of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, infact all actual footage of the building PROVES my "unsupported theory" because I'm pretty sure I'd recall having seen that. Also, why was the collapse of building 7 only shown on air ONCE meanwhile the North and South towers shown hundreds of times. I'll tell you why. Because they figured they could use the "well a plane hit those buildings!" excuse.

Also, why only building 7? There are a whole bunch of buildings right next to the North and South towers and infact one standing RIGHT NEXT TO IT sufferred LESS damage(almost none whatsoever except for falling debris but HEY IT's STILL STANDING) than building 7 which was FURTHER AWAY.

Also, why doesn't a single shot of WTC-7 show a hole of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER